maybe the 4th best conservative college blog in America in 2008

From the poor choice of anti gay, anti woman, creepy fundy freak Rick Warren, to the botchd National Anthem by way, way past her prime, Aretha Franklin in a crazy, tacky hat, to the flubbed up oath of office by Obama and Roberts, to the less than inspiring speech by Obama, to the racist Rev. Lowry, to the weired “poet”, to the rude attendees who booed Pres. Bush, the ENTIRE EVENT WAS JUST NOT CLASSY!

I am a Democrat and I am embarrassed. If this is the best Obama’s got he’s going to be a one termer.

The fawning media is embarrassing itself again.

This is the same crowd that pelted the Presidential limo in 2001 with eggs–you know, before they knew that Bush was Bushitler and that they hated him more than their unloving alcoholic fathers.

“Classy,” dear WaPo commenter, has never been a word to describe this crowd.

(thanks to Stephanie S.)

UPDATE 9:51pm BST: A few weeks ago, I noted a Military Times poll that showed U.S. troops were “skeptical” of Barack Obama. I guess that doesn’t really make them a whole lot different to the rest of us who aren’t drinking the kool-aid.

According to TSO who was at the â€œSalute to Heroes Inaugural Ballâ€, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (thatâ€™s 14 Inaugurations).

Some background on the ball;

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nationâ€™s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhowerâ€™s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Remember, this crowd was filled with people voted “most likely to live in a cave, fashion their clothes from already-dead animals, & sterilize themselves, in order to reduce their carbon footprint & save the world” in high school.

In 2005, the leftists and the media (but I repeat myself) complained about the $42.3 million price tag of President George W. Bush’s 2nd inaugural. They trotted out all sorts of numbers about how much body armor that money could buy, how many children it would insure, etc., etc.

Where are the critics now? How much body armor, kiddie insurance, recession relief, whatever, would $170 million buy?

The truth is this: I don’t begrudge Democrats their little self-congratulatory post inaugural parties. Live it up & enjoy it while it lasts.

All I’m asking for is a little less hypocrisy out of them and their fellow travelers in the media.

20 January 5:28pm BST: Catherine C. emailed and corrected my math. According to the article I cited, the party/parade portion of Bush’s 2nd inauguration was $42.3 million & Obama’s is estimated at “roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more.” No word on the security costs associated with Bush’s inauguration.

4 years later, we remain at war in Iraq & Afghanistan. Add to that the current economic crisis. Things have improved (vastly) in Iraq but remained the same or gotten worse in Afghanistan. Is Obama’s inauguration cost any less extravagant? Yet the tone of the media has changed. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy.”

Again, I don’t begrudge the Democrats their party day. It’s private money, let them spend it how they like. I’m just calling for a little more equity, a little less hypocrisy, a more evenhanded evaluation by the liberal media. That’s all.

“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,â€ said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified, because he feared reprisals from the Obama administration.

Okay, maybe I added that last clause.

You’d think that after George W. Bush, these guys would be relieved to see anyone else as Commander in Chief.

Or not. From the same article:

When asked who has their best interests at heart â€” Obama or President George W. Bush â€” a higher percentage of respondents picked Bush […]

It’s nice to see that members of the military are more skeptical and not as susceptible to Obamania as other Americans in their age group.

The key mistake Democrats made [after Jimmy Carter won the White House] in 1976 was failing to realize what brought them to power. Democrats won because of public dissatisfaction with the previous regime, which had overseen the economic crisis, and also because of a wider fear that America would have to live with diminished expectations. But although they won on largely economic grounds, Democrats acted as if they had a sweeping mandate for cultural transformation — for social libertarianism, affirmative action and egalitarianism, dovish internationalism, and idealistic notions of human rights. These ideas dominated a radical Congress and were enthusiastically adopted by the cohort of Carter appointments to the judiciary. They all ignored a basic principle: just because people are unhappy where they are does not mean they are willing to go anywhere you try to lead them.

Joe Scarborough asks and no liberal/supporter of Obama has a good answer: Why were a couple hundred reporters scouring Wasila for dirt on Palin while no one dug up anything on Obama and his corrupt Chicago connections? Anyone? Anyone?

Which, as you readers already know, pleases me a great deal. I’m glad to see the airy rhetoric of Obama’s many inane campaign promises (rubber) hit the proverbial road. As us realists always knew, those sorts of ridiculous promises were never going to work for real.

On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to â€œend the warâ€ in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

â€œI said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary â€” likely to be necessary â€” to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,â€ Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that â€œresidual force,â€ a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obamaâ€™s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 â€” and some say as high as 70,000 â€” for a substantial time even beyond 2011.

Like Ace, I wonder what his supporters will say now to excuse his betrayal of what was the most important issue to them during this campaign: The complete and total withdrawal of American “occupying” forces from Iraq.

MUMBAI – Ajmal Amir Kasab, the sole surviving member of the 10-man team of Pakistani gunmen that left hundreds dead or wounded after a bloody three day rampage in Mumbai, today blamed the mayhem on an “email mixup” that left him and his colleagues unaware that Barack Obama had won election as President of the United States.

“What? Oh bloody hell, now you tell me,” said Kasab, as he was led away in handcuffs by Indian security forces.

Kasab, 21, apologized to Indian President Pratibha Patil, explaining that no one in his group had known about the recent U.S. election results.

“Boy, talk about having egg on the face,” said a visibly embarrassed Kasab. “If we knew Bush was on his way out, obviously we would have called off the crazy random baby-shootings and martyrdom stuff, and signed on with the Peace Corps or Habitat for Humanity. At this point I guess all I can say is ‘my bad.'”

Soon the moonbats won’t have Bush to blame for the world’s problems. Strike that. They’ll be blaming him for everything for years to come. Oh, I get it now. Nevermind. That’s why Iowahawk’s satire is so smart. And funny.